 |
December 18, 1996. Greg Price to Richard Bacon. Dialogue
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 20:17:07 -0700 (MST) From: Greg Price
To: Richard Bacon
Subject: Re: Request To Dialogue (fwd)
Dear Dick,
I am sorry to take so long to reply to your last post. We are in the process of moving (packing etc.). However, I will try to squeeze in a brief response. I do appreciate your correspondence and continue to pray that through these means, God will bring us to one mind. Brother, you are in our thoughts and prayers. God be with you.
For Christ's Crown and Covenanted Reformation,
Greg L. Price
On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Richard Bacon wrote:
> Dear Greg,
>
> Greetings in the Lord Jesus:
>
> At 09:57 AM 11/20/96 -0700, Greg Price wrote:
>
> >The post to which you refer above (2/22/96) was a request to be patient
> >concerning an overture that
> >our session was working on in regard to matters related to social
> >covenanting and its implications for presbyterians today. This was sent
> >to the Reformation Presbyterian Church (dated March 6, 1996) and actually
> >had the effect of revealing to us the necessity of addressing these issues
> >to The Reformation Presbyterian Church from a position of dissociation
> >rather than from a postion of association. If the time to discuss these
> >issues was before and after last March of 1996, are you saying that you
> >are unwilling to discuss these matters with me now in an informal forum,
> >or unwilling to discuss the reasons for our dissociation with our session
> >in an informal, non-judicial setting?
>
> What I am suggesting is in a sense two-fold. First, I do think that y'all
> acted hastily and unfairly in disassociating without first calling the
> Presbytery to repentance if you think sin was being committed. OTOH, if
> sin was not being committed, then I fail to see how waiting until after
> the April presbytery meeting could have increased your culpability. IMO
> the problems in great measure arise from the fact that you have not set
> forth your reasons in a proper manner, but rushed to judgment.
The problem we faced was one in which we had come to firm convictions that the terms of communion in the Reformation Presbyterian Church were contrary to the biblical and covenanted reformation as attained to in the Church of Scotland (1638-1649). We then realized the Reformation Presbyterian Church was not rightly constitituted by virtue of what I just mentioned as well as by virtue of not having formally taken vows as church officers.
We yet believe we acted appropriately in dissociating ourselves and then calling the Reformation Presbyterian Church to repentance in light of the unconstituted establishment of the Reformation Presbyterian Church.
>
> >Dick, since you acknowledge you have read the material we have sent
> >regarding covenanting and the perpetual obligation of covenants, do you
> >agree with us or not? What did you understand by the statement at the
> >first meeting in Atlanta, GA: *It is not necessary to take the Covenant
> >of the three kingdoms.* Again, does your response above indicate you are
> >willing to discuss these matters with us outside of a judicial context?
>
> I agree with 100% of what you are saying in the doctrinal and theoretical
> level. I also agree with 99 44/100% of what you are saying in the practical
> level. Also, not only I, but you and Greg agreed to the statement that "it
> is not necessary to take the covenant of the three kingdoms." I still do
> not think it is, nor do I think the material you sent has demonstrated such
> a necessity.
It is true that we sinfully agreed to accept the statement to which you refer above. We have repented of our sin and have asked the Reformation Presbyterian Church and the Puritan Reformed Church to forgive us for agreeing to what we now believe to have been perjury on our parts in disowning the SLC. What did you precisely understand the following statement
to mean: *It is not necessary
to take the covenant of the three kingdoms*? This seems to be one of the most significant issues that separates us. We (the session of Edmonton) understood that
we were abjuring the Solemn League and Covenant as not obligating us (as did
Bruce Robinson).
Can you explicitly explain whether you believe the Solemn League and Covenant is
perpetually binding upon posterity (and if you believe it is, what aspects of the covenant bind posterity?). Are only blood-line descendants bound?
Are any nations today bound by the SLC? Are any churches so bound?
>
> As far as my willingness to discuss these issues, I was fully prepared to
> discuss these issues nearly a year ago when your session requested a
> postponement of presbytery for the purposes of sending up a petition or
> overture. I have never refused to discuss these things. I believe your
> session acted hastily in the manner in which it treated those to whom it
> had promised better treatment. Biblically, I believe our yeas should be
> yea.
I couldn't agree with you more. However, our yeas cannot be yeas if our yeas lead us to sin. In such a case our yeas must become nays.
>
> >> In a phrase it leaves us dissociated. I disagree with your manner and
> >> method of leaving the Presbytery; I think it would be a violation of the
> >> fifth commandment to act as if nothing untoward had taken place; but I
> >> also acknowledge that things are as things are.
> >
> >Dick, are you saying that the fifth commandment forbids you from meeting
> >with us in an informal setting to discuss the reasons for our
> >dissociation, or informally discussing these issues with me by e-mail?
>
> No, I'm saying that we cannot act as though "nothing has happened" when
> something very clearly has. A wall has been built between us, and much
> of it has nothing at all to do with the subject of covenanting. It has
> very much to do with how we handle disagreements (or perceived disagreements
> for that matter).
Our request for such a meeting as we proposed did not imply that nothing at all had happened. This meeting was intended to address exactly
that issue: What has happened? Brother, how we handle disagreements in our
marriage is one thing and whether or not we are married is another thing. What we are addressing is the matter that we could not discuss our *disagreements* while pretending as if we were married (when we believed we were not married).
>
> >Dick, we would be willing to discuss any mater you might raise (including
> >placing documents on a website). I would specifically, ask you to discuss
> >with me three issues that I believe bear upon our dissociation: (1) What
> >did you mean by the phrase: *It is not necessary to take the Covenant of
> >the three kingdoms.* (2) What is you view of the Revolution Settlement
> >(1690)? (3) What obligations do presbyterian churches today have in
> >dissociation from Revolution Settlement churches that implicitly own the
> >burning of the covenants, persecution of the covenanters, and Acts
> >Recissory which made null and void the attainments of the second
> >reformation? (4) Is not the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland a
> >descendant of the Revolution settlement in its constitution? (5) Is the
> >constitution of the U.S. a moral or immoral constitution? Can Christians
> >take oaths of allegiance to it?
>
> I counted five.
You counted correctly. Math never was my favorite subject. I think I may have meant to say *these issues* rather than *three issues.* Oh well.
> Perhaps you can tell me which ones go together so as to
> make it three distinct issues. Let's handle these one at a time.
>
> (1) I would be happy to answer any questions you have about the implications
> of taking or not taking specific historical covenants, including SL&C. But
> I probably meant the same thing you and Greg did when you agreed to the very
> same phrase. Further, that question came up at our first meeting in October
> of 1994 and was discussed to a degree that apparently satisfied you at that
> time.
I must confess, I do not remember the discussion. If you do, please jog my memory. I believe that meeting was taped as well. Perhaps the tape would reveal what was said.
> IMO a better question would be what scriptural authority or confessional
> authority you believe yourself to have to change previously agreed upon
> terms of communion in a unilateral fashion? I would refer you to a tract
> distributed by SWRB titled "Of Separation from Corrupt Churches," in which
> the author stated, "We answer that such evils entering into a church, do by
> no means, warrant us instantly to forsake it, and form ourselves into a new
> church-state. It is our duty, first, to labour as the Lord gives us ability
> and opportunity, for a reformation of abuses; and in this, we ought to be
> patient as well as earnest." But Presbytery had not only expressed its
> willingness to consider your concerns, but even postponed a meeting so that
> you might better prepare yourselves and your arguments for that eventuality.
> I submit to you that your separation was NOT the result of rebuffed
> attempts at reform, but was an instant forsaking. Nor is it possible for
> the session of the Edmonton PRC rightly to accuse presbytery of obstinacy
> for requiring you to explain your differences BEFORE leaving.
No, I never suggested that you had stubbornly refused to discuss these issues of conscience with us. However, neither did you agree to meet with us as we proposed so as to discuss these matters. Furthermore, we did not receive any offical response to our concerns which were addressed to the Reformation Presbyterian Church (except to note in the minutes that our Overture was not in the right form.
We agree that under circumstances that would allow us to remain in a rightly constituted presbytery, we should take the steps outlined above. But that is the very assumption that has not been proven (Was it rightly constituted?). As we continued to indicate by means of email communication to the presbytery, we wanted to talk. We just could not do so while considering ourselves members of a presbytery that was not rightly constituted.
>
> (2) It was a compromise of the position previously taken by the kirk of
> Scotland with respect to uniformity of religion.
I would add, it was an abominable abjuration of the covenanted reformation.
>
> (3) This question is too vague for me to be able to answer. I will attempt
> to answer any specific questions you might have. I think promise breakers
> of all kinds should be called to repentance. Promise breaking is a violation
> of God's holy law at the ninth commandment.
I am sorry if the question was too vague. Perhaps this may communicate my concern more clearly: Do we have a duty to dissociate ourselves from all ecclesiastical descendants of the Revolution Settlement Church of Scotland (i.e. all those churches that disown or disregard the attainments of the second reformation in their constitutions)?
>
> (4) What has that to do with us or with anything that took place prior to
> your letter of disassociation?
With all due respect brother, it has everything to do with our letter of dissociation. For the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has adopted in substance the original constitution of the Free Church of Scotland which adopted in substance the original constitution of the Revolution Settlement Church of Scotland. In other words, there is a direct line of ecclesiastical descent from the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland to the Revolution Settlement Church of Scotland. I have already described the constitution of the Revolution Settlement Church of Scotland to be an abominable abjuration of the attainments of the second reformation (cf.
Plain Reasons For Presbyterians Dissenting by Clarkson). Since one of those points of sinful and wilful abjuration was the neglectful silence concerning the previous burning and burying of the sacred covenants of Scotland and thus the necessary implication that *it was not necessary to take the covenant of the three kingdoms*, and since this was the language adopted toward the SLC at the first meeting in Atlanta, and since the Reformation Presbyterian Church subsequently adopted the standards of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, it is directly to the point of our concern as to what you presently believe concerning the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (which church has not yet set the record straight concerning her own sinful abjuration of the attainments of the second reformation).
>
> (5) It is an immoral constitution. I think the second part of your question
> was intended to ask a moral question, but I cannot tell what it is.
Since you believe the U.S. Constitution is immoral, ought a Christian to hold an office which would require him to take an oath of allegiance to the constitution (and further, ought a Christian to vote for any one that will be required to take an oath of allegiance to the constitution)?
>
> >Dick, Mr. Barrow was not present to take vows on behalf of myself or Mr.
> >Dohms. We never gave him leave to do so, nor was there any thing in the
> >motion to that effect. The minute in question in fact states the
> >contrary: *This vote was considered by those voting as the taking of a
> >vow obliging compliance with the statement. The moderator's vote was
> >included in the number recorded above.* The most that can be concluded
> >from this
> >motion is that those voting obligated themselves to comply with the
> >subscription statement. Would you please cite warrant in presbyterian
> >polity for subscription vows being taken by one on behalf of others
> >without their knowledge and without that stated purpose being made known
> >to the assembly present?
>
> De 29:11 "Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that [is] in thy
> camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: That thou
> shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath,
> which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day:" Plus, if I understand
> your position re. the covenant of the three kingdoms correctly, you are
> claiming precisely that others have taken vows on your behalf -- or at
> least that such vows are incumbent upon you. Your objection to making
> Mr. Barrow's vow the rule for your faith and practice is not materially
> different from others' objections concerning making the SL&C the rule
> of our faith and practice.
Thus, if I understand correctly the above biblical citation and response, you do believe that church officers may take subscription vows for other church officers without their consent or approval, or without such being understood by those witnessing the vows. Again I ask you to cite any presbyterian book of church order to that effect. You later imply that you agree that Mr. Barrow did not take vows for me. So what is the point of your argument here? Biblical covenants or vows that bound suceeding generations, were understood by those who were present that such was the case.
This is precisely my point, this was not the case as it relates to me (i.e even assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Barrow took a legitimate vow by which he himself is bound, no one understood that Mr.Barrow was taking a vow on my behalf of Mr. Price).
>
> >I agree it is not the memory of Mr. Barrow or that of Mr. Robinson that
> >determines what happened. My point is that there is no recollection of
> >this motion being constituted as a vow. Thus, my appeal to an audio tape
> >or video tape of the meeting. That would certainly settle the matter once
> >for all whether the motion was constituted a vow by the moderator or by
> >the assembly present. Approved minutes of presbytery may be corrected by
> >a *higher court* according to *A Manual of the Practice of the Free
> >Presbyterian Church of Scotland* (*They cannot be altered, except by the
> >authority of a higher Court* Ch.II, Pt.I, Par.22, p.34). Such an
> >alteration would presumably be for errors or violations of constitutional
> >law etc. I submit that if there is no *higher court* to which to appeal
> >an error in approved minutes, that such might be done by the same court
> >upon just warrant. We would like to settle this issue in our own minds.
> >If such a vow was associated with this motion, tapes of the meeting would
> >make this clear. Do you know whether such tapes were made of that
> >meeting?
>
> Yes, the meeting was videotaped. Yes, the particular action was on the
> tape, from 11:30 to 11:32 on the time imposed on the screen of the video.
> While I agree that higher courts can overturn an incorrect minute, it is
> nonetheless the burden of the higher court to prove the minute incorrect.
> Since there is no higher court in the Rfn PC, I do not yet understand
> the point you make by reference to the manual of practice. As I stated
> in an earlier post, these minutes have NOT been accepted without scrutiny.
Dick, I intend no disrespect, but I must ask: Why have you had access to this video tape while others have been denied access to this video tape?
I understand Bruce Robinson asked David Seekamp if he could view this tape and was denied access to it. My point in directing you to the Free Presbyterian Book of Church Order was to demonstrate that minutes (even approved minutes) may be subsequently corrected if they are found to be in error. Moreover, since there is no higher court to which to appeal in such a matter, the presbytery itself may subsequently correct its own minutes if they are in error. To maintain a contrary position is to say that error that is formally approved, is error that can never be corrected until there is a higher court. Is that your understanding of approved minutes?
>
> As far as vows are concerned, please read the statement itself -- see if
> it contains promises and covenants. If it does, then it is binding. If
> it is a proposal to submit something to a future court then it is not
> binding. We had previously worked on that covenant statement -- it is a
> combination of two statements presented by Greg (I assumed for the session
> of Edmonton, but now I'm not sure what status he held) and Bruce. We
> worked out the final form of the covenant on 7/22/95 and bound ourselves to
> it by division of the vote from 11:30 to 11:32 on that date. If the Edmonton
> session does not believe itself bound by such or if they think that Elder
> Barrow was vowing only for himself, that could certainly have been a topic of
> discussion. However, it is now these 17 or 18 months later. Why could
> these concerns not have been brought to the presbytery in an orderly way
> in March and April of 1996 instead of the sudden and irreparable manner in
> which they have been handled? Were copies of the July 1995 minutes (in
> their unapproved form) not sent to you prior to the scheduled February
> 1996 meeting? If no (unapproved) minutes were sent to you prior to the
> meeting, then I would suggest that you have a legitimate complaint against
> the clerk of presbytery.
Dick, the nature of the motion (it appears to me as I read the minutes) was simply to approve the subscription statement as one by which officers would subsequently be admitted into the presbytery. If it were clearly understood by all to be the case that they were formally taking vows then it is unclear to me why it was necessary to add the notation that this motion constituted vows on the part of all who voted. Thus, this is the reason why we have appealed to a tape of the meeting to determine whether that notation was made clear. For without that notation, I would not understand that the motion was any more than a motion to approve of the wording of the subscription statement. Whether our session approved of the subscription statement at that time is not really relevant to the issue. Even if we maintain we did approve of the wording of the statement and that our approval was so indicated by Mr. Barrow's vote, the issue of whether vows were consciously taken still remains.
>
> Now, what purpose would there have been for a division of the vote if there
> were no dissenting votes? The tape clearly shows that we were counting each
> vote separately so that there would not be a misunderstanding that someone
> else has bound us to such a promise without our consent. Now, if that does
> release the remainder of the session of the Edmonton church, then presbytery
> should decided (fyi, I would probably vote with you on it). However, I do
> not see how it could possibly be understood to be something we may or may
> not keep for those who were actually present and voting -- including Mr.
> Robinson.
The most that can be inferred from the motion that was made (apart from consideration of the notation that appears immediately following the declaration of the vote) was that there were no dissenting votes as to the wording of the subscription statement (in other words the precise wording of the subscription statement was approved by all present without any dissent), not that all (without dissent) agreed that they were taking formal vows as church officers. I cannot possilbly understand how if that were understood by all, how the majority of officers who were present at that meeting deny that such formal vows were consciously taken. Again I request you to provide me with either a copy of that tape or a transcript of the tape that would help clarify this whole matter. Thanks Dick.
>
> Dick Bacon
> dbacon@airmail.net
> Pastor, First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett, TX
> http://web2.airmail.net/bluebanr
>
> Dan. 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God
> of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be
> destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other
> people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all
> these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
| Page Created 08/17/1997 | Page Last Updated: 07/04/99 08:38:01 PM |